[Macworld]

Post your comments for A new day for Macs in the enterprise? here

[nmpike]

One has to question Apple's commitment to enterprise though. apple killed the XSERVE raid... how long before they kill the XSERVE itself?
Linux is an excellent (and often superior) alternative for the server OS. And it isn't going anywhere.
mike

[shadow99]

What kind of Mac hardware is Rob Isreal talking about when he says it's not compatible with new Mac OSes? He must be running some awfully old Macs to make that type of claim.

[shadow99]

Big difference between the xServer RAID and the xServer, the first being a storage cabinet that many companies make.

[Rick LePage]

I think his point is more that they don't necessarily want to (or can't) upgrade to the new OS when Apple releases it, and they need to stock up on Macs that will run the previous OS (since a new Mac won't necessarily run older versions), just in case.
seems a bit odd, but that's how I read it.

[mretondo]

Rick LePage wrote:I think his point is more that they don't necessarily want to (or can't) upgrade to the new OS when Apple releases it, and they need to stock up on Macs that will run the previous OS (since a new Mac won't necessarily run older versions), just in case.
seems a bit odd, but that's how I read it.
A bit odd indeed, every Mac shipped since Leopard has come out can run Tiger and I believe Panther too.

[Luke_Macwalker]

Rick LePage said:

I think his point is more that they don't necessarily want to (or can't) upgrade to the new OS when Apple releases it, and they need to stock up on Macs that will run the previous OS (since a new Mac won't necessarily run older versions), just in case.

seems a bit odd, but that's how I read it.

I think it's exactly that and it's not odd at all.
Moreover, it's also a problem for smal developers who have to keep old Macs for years just to be able to test software on older OS (try to run Mac OS X 10.3.9 on the latest iMac for example, or Mac OS X 10.4.11 on a MacBook Air).
Why would a company want to keep the older OS, are you wondering, maybe? For example while waiting for some critical software being updated to be compatible with the newer OS.
Usually no big deal for individuals, but it's really inconvenient for some companies.

[bgreinke]

You really need to put proper m-dashes in that first paragraph. Those hyphens make it a little confusing.

[Peter Cohen]

This is a significant problem for a lot of companies that invest heavily in Mac-based software workflows that may rely on older components. Here's a practical example: It's been a while, but nine years ago, before I began working for Macworld, I worked in IT for a newspaper publisher.

The publisher had developed a rather elaborate ad generation and page layout workflow that was dependent on both Windows Mac OS-based systems. It was cobbled together from content that was generated by and spec'd from a Unix system, laid out on a Mac, with some content produced on PCs.

Upgrading the hardware or software of any of those individual components could, would and, in fact, did run the risk of creating compatibility issues with critical components. We couldn't afford to re-create the entire workflow simply because a vendor upgraded their product, even if it meant a better processor, better page layout program or more efficient UNIX code. We couldn't arbitrarily install even a minor maintenance update to the operating system without thoroughly understanding what effect it would have on the rest of our workflow, without getting reassurances from vendors that their software was up to spec, and without thoroughly testing it ourselves to make sure there weren't hitherto unforeseen problems.

That mean there was often a long gap between the time that, say, Apple would update Mac OS, or that Quark would update QuarkXPress, and when we'd deploy it. Sometimes we faced the ire of our more technically minded users, who'd see the world passing us by and wonder why we weren't getting with the program.

However, faced with the alternative of not being able to work, or working at a diminished capacity, simply in the hope that we'd see improved productivity or efficiency, the path was clear, if not always popular.

Taking this example, it's easy to see why a company would be reluctant -- if not completely opposed -- to the idea of mandatory hardware and software upgrades based on Apple's development strategy. And Apple is certainly known to introduce changes in its operating system code that can break compatibility with software developed for previous operating systems.

This is a very real problem for companies out there. I hope people reading this thread don't discount this just because they can't wrap their heads around the idea.

[mretondo]

Peter, I agree with you completely as far as the software goes. My argument with this guy was what he said about the hardware. He's talking as if he's stock up on 2002 Quicksilver G4's so he can still boot OS9. Am I wrong about all the latest Macs can run Tiger and I believe Panther too?

[shadow99]

I agree, it's sounds like Israel's still running Mac OS9 or earlier. Anybody tried running Windows 98 lately in a wide scale situation? I doubt it.

[Paddy]

mretondo, I'm afraid that you're wrong about new Macs being able to boot old operating systems. Generally speaking, a Mac will NOT boot any OS older than the one it shipped with. The only exception to this might be a Mac that came out prior to a fairly recent OS release - while it may ship with the new release, it may still be able to boot the older OS.
I worked for a while at a daily newspaper with a circulation of 70,000 or so on weekdays and 125,000 on weekends. We still did all our layout on G4s running OS 9 and Quark 4.1. There were even a few B&W G3s around. They used a custom pagination system - making the switch to OS X and newer machines was going to be cost prohibitive in a business that is hanging on by the skin of its teeth at the best of times. Eventually, however, they are going to be driven to it simply because they can no longer buy hardware. However, about two years ago the paper was acquired by a large company from the southern US and the rumor when I left 18 months ago was that they'd be switching to Windows, not OS X. Stupid move, but that's corporate America for you. (Of course, the fact that there are many newspapers and magazines running OS X and InDesign these days probably won't have any impact on these bozos)

[mretondo]

Yes, that is the case with newer macs not booting OS 9. I have a new iMac that came with Leopard but I put Tiger on it first to test something for a friend and it worked fine. I then reinstalled Leopard of course and migrated from my old mac. What might confuse some people is when a new mac comes out it might require the latest version of an OS i.e. 10.5.2 or 10.4.11 or 10.3.9.

[fridomac]

Hello!

I currently work at one of the larger newspapers in Germany, and I know exactly what he is talking about. We currently have an ad-prodution workflow based around InDesign, Lotus Notes and AppleScript. When we developed it, it was done on OS X 10.3.9. When Apple started shipping Macs that did not run 10.3 anymore, we were in trouble and had to spend a lot of money on adapting all the stuff for 10.4. Now that Leopard is here, I think that newer Intel-Macs don't run Tiger any more, so the game begins anew. And that really is a problem for the mac enterprise market, as even the newest Windows-boxes we buy (mostly Dell) run older versions of Windows (back to Windows 2000).
The newspaper market here in europe is already Windows-dominated, so I am really struggling as a Mac-Admin....

Just my 2ct's...

Bye, Frido.